What could the Tory government have done differently in order to prevent this sickening attack?If you're the kind of person who pays attention to what your government is up to, you'll know that the Tories spent a considerable amount of effort last year on introducing the most extreme state surveillance laws anywhere in the developed world. The Snoopers' Charter (The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 -to give it it's official name) is an astounding piece of legislation. Not only does it give the state the power to tell lies in court to secure convictions, it also gives over 20,000 state employees the ability to go trawling through all of our private communications data.Freedom of information requests have revealed that thousands of state employees at dozens of non-terrorism related state agencies (such as the Gambling Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Food Standards Agency) have been empowered to snoop on us.The question now, in light of the appalling terrorist attacks in Westminster and Manchester that have happened since the Snoopers' Charter came into force, is was this snooping law an effective use of time and resources?Instead of focusing their efforts on ensuring that a load of people at the Food Standards Agency can now access your private communications data, maybe the government could have done something that would have actually helped to prevent these appalling terrorist attacks?This isn't political point scoring. It's a legitimate line of enquiry.Both of the horrifying attacks in Westminster and Manchester happened under this Tory government. And both of them happened after their flagship state snooping policy became law in November 2016.Asking how these awful attacks happened, and what the government could have done differently to prevent them are legitimate questions.